Mike is a retired stock broker, and now published author of Gold Rush!. In addition, he is a freelance writer specializing in real estate, personal finance and home decor now writing from San Miguel, Mexico.

Entries Tagged as ''

I just returned from Central Oregon and I could hardly wait to tell this story: My friend Connie and her husband planned a two week road-trip taking in Sacramento, then Arizona (down around Yuma) back up through Las Vegas and home. Connie loves Australian Shepherds and someday planned to get an Aussie that would be her dog. She even had a name picked out: Nel.

The couple started out planning to drive to Klamath Falls, on through Weed, Nevada and then to Redding, California. They were making great time so they passed an staying the night in any of those cities and instead aimed for Red Bluff, 30 minutes from Redding. Connie wanted a cup of coffee. When in Red Bluff in the past, they always stopped at a little independent coffee shop. When they arrived in Red Bluff, they noticed a sign that advertised the fact that Starbucks was now open. They searched all over and couldn’t find the store so changed their mind and started back for their familiar coffee kiosk. Connie’s husband, Bill, said he’d get her coffee and be right back.

While he was standing in line a man in a pickup drove up and Bill noticed in the bed of the truck were two black and white Aussie Shepherds. He asked the man if those were working dogs. They got into quite a discussion about the breed and the high quality of these particular dogs. Bill mentioned that he was interested in buying another dog, but these dogs were too old. He was interested in a dog much younger. The pickup driver said you might want to take a look at his third dog. Bill could see only three two.

The third dog, the man said, was hiding under a tool box. Bill went with the man to take a look and there in the bed of the truck was a very friendly brown and white female about four months old. “How much you asking for the pup,” said Bill and was told $100. That is a very good price for a Aussie with good blood lines, so Bill called Connie over and for Connie it was love at first sight. Bill paid the man and asked him if he could hold onto the dog until they passed back through on their way home. “Sure, no problem!” Connie asked if he had named the pup. Most pups don’t get named by breeders.

Which party, Democratic or Republican is identified more with the NRA?
Which party, Democratic or Republican, is favored by people who believe in the right to bear arms?
Which party, Democratic or Republican is identified with gun control?
What West Coast liberal city voted for the nation’s toughest ban on handguns by making it illegal for city residents to possess them?

I ask because I just received my email from Kari Chisholm of Blue Oregon. She He hosts an article written by Zak Johnson of Portland, Oregon. Zak is one of the co-founders of the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon. Johnson quotes Jason Brown (Democratic nominee for Oregon House District 23)

“I’m a Quaker and would never personally own a gun,” said Brown. “But it’s [the right to bear arms] in the Constitution and there’s a reason it’s in there. It’s what supports the right of the people to change their government.”

Johnson continues:

Exactly. Supporting the 2nd Amendment is the key to supporting the rest of the Constitution. Andsupporting the Constitution–as it is written–is the key to supporting our national identity and the rule of law.

At this point I started laughing at the Democratic Party. The article already told us that according to Al Gore’s campaign spokesman, Doug Hattaway,

Gore lost his home state of Tennessee–along with the rest of the South and the Intermountain West…because of the gun issue.

Further Montana Democratic Chairman Bob Ream has said, that people think we want to take their guns away. (Answer Please: It was San Francisco that voted for the nation’s toughest ban on handguns.)

Why, the Democratic Party of Oregon (DPO) last year passed Resolution 2005-008. It states in part:

Section 1. To recognize and support the right to keep and bear arms in Article 1 Section 27 of the Oregon State Constitution and the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America as an individual right not granted by the government, but rather guaranteed by the government.Section 2. In recognition of the tremendous personal responsibility engendered by the right to keep and bear arms, the Democratic Party of Oregon further advocates severe penalties and their enforcement for criminal use or misuse of the right.

Bottom line the DPO thinks because they passed Resolution 2005-008, you will identify the Democratic Party as the party that will protect your 2nd Amendment rights and the party that supports the Constitution–as it is written.

Trying to correct the claims by the rabid liberals can be a full time job for we bloggers. I am pleased to join others and again be able to correct CBS. Back on April 23, Tyler Drumheller, a former chief of the CIA’s Europe division, in a “60 Minutes” interview made a sensational charge.

He claimed that President Bush and his White House ignored intelligence before the invasion of Iraq indicating that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.
Liberals love this kind mantra: Bush had his mind made up when he was elected the first time, that he was going to invade Iraq to revenge the attempted assassination of his father. He lied about WMDs. “Bush lied, people died.” Drumheller did his job, claiming intelligence told Bush the truth and was ignored.

Now it appears Drumheller’s claim was untrue, according to the findings of a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence investigation. Rather than undercutting the Bush administration’s rationale for invading Iraq, (Naji Sabri, the then Iraqi foreign minister)’s account shows how well-founded the intelligence on Saddam’s weapons program appeared to be.Ironically, just as Drumheller claimed that Bush ignored the truth about Iraq, the media have ignored the documentation in the Senate report demolishing Drumheller’s claim.

An addenda to the Senate report on postwar findings about Iraq’s WMD program says all the operational documents relating to Sabri indicate he told the CIA just the opposite of what Drumheller claimed. The Senate report refers to Sabri as a source with direct access to Saddam Hussein and his inner circle but does not name him.

“Both the operations cable and the intelligence report prepared for high-level policy-makers [based on interrogation of the source] said that while Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapon, ‘he was aggressively and covertly developing such a weapon,'” the Senate report said.

[…]

Moreover, there is “not a single document relating to this case which indicates that the source said Iraq had no WMD programs,” the addenda said. “On the contrary, all of the information about this case so far indicates that the information from this source was that Iraq did have WMD programs.”

I am constantly amazed at the liberals claiming that Bush lied about WMDs, when their own Democratic party officials, since the first Gulf War claimed Iraq had WMDs. The UN passed resolution after resolution demanding Iraq give up WMDs and even imposed sanctions as leverage to get Iraq to comply. Some claim that 1.2 Million people (or children) died as a consequence of those sanctions under the Clinton administration. Yet they make such outrageous claims against this president and ignore their own party’s declarastions.

Let me just say, liberals get your head out of your ass. We are in Iraq for the right reasons. The UN which you so love, made demands/threats and it was Bush and a handful of supporters that backed the resolutions with military power. Once again, the UN is called on to deal with an Iran that wants to go nuclear. The UN believes in non-proliferation and makes demands/threats, but will not lift a finger to seek compliance. Once again, only Bush and a handful of supporters are left with just military power to force compliance. Shame on all you liberals!

Thanks to France and it’s arab sympathies, that go back to the time prior to the establishment of Israel, the world community has no leverage over ending the nuclear ambitions of Iran.

“There will be no war against Iran,” Chirac is reported to have told a special emissary of the Islamic Republic who visited him in Paris last week. “Anything other than negotiations would be resolutely opposed by France.”

[…]

Chirac dropped the only condition that the 5+1 group – the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany – had demanded of Teheran as a prelude to negotiations.

So Iran does not have to do anything to demonstrate
good faith and Russia and China have ruled out sanctions. If…if, the world’s goal is to keep Iran from joining the nuclear club, we have no bargaining power. That leaves WAR AS THE ONLY CREDIBLE OPTION. I suspect Ahmadinejad, based on years of U.S. history, does not take the U.S. seriously and I suspect that once again the U.S, will be facing Iran with relatively few public backers.

Manufacturing in the Philadelphia region stalled in September, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported Thursday. The Philly Fed diffusion index plunged to -0.4 in September from 18.5 in August. This is the first negative since April 2003. Readings below zero indicate contraction. The decline was much larger than expected. Economists were expecting the index to slip only to 14.3, according to a MarketWatch survey.

Inverted yield curves are rare. Never ignore them. They are always followed by economic slowdown â€” or outright recession â€” as well as lower interest rates across the board. Take a look at the table below. You can see that rates peak at 5.12% and are lower throughout

At first glance an inverted yield curve seems like a paradox. Why would long-term investors settle for lower yields while short-term investors take so much less risk?

The answer is that long-term investors will settle for lower yields now if they think rates â€” and the economy â€” are going even lower in the future. They’re betting that this is their last chance to lock in rates before the bottom falls out.

…U.S. Officials say they have shifted some troops from Anbar province, the country’s largest, and one of its most violent to Baghdad this summer, not because security conditions are improving in the western province but because they are deteriorating even more in the capital area.

Urgent news from Abu Dawood, the newly appointed commander of the al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan:

Final preparations have been made for the American Hiroshima, a major attack on the U. S.

Muslims living in the United States should leave the country without further warning.

The attack will be commandeered by Adnan el Shukrijumah (Jaffer Tayyer or Jafer the Pilot), a naturalized American citizen, who was raised in Brooklyn and educated in southern Florida.

The al Qaeda operatives who will launch this attack are awaiting final orders. They remain in place in cities throughout the country. Many are masquerading as Christians and have adopted Christian names.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban will also launch a major strike (known as the Badar offensive) against the coalition forces in Afghanistan during the holy month of Ramadan.

The American people will be treated to a final audio message from Osama bin Laden which will be aired within the next two weeks.

Q: What do you mean by another attack in America?

A: Yes a bigger attack than September 11th 2001. Brother Adnan [el Shukrijumah] will lead that attack, Inshallah.

Q:Who is Adnan?

A: He is our old friend. The last time, I met him in early 2004, in Khost. He came to Khost from the North Waziristan. He met his leaders and friends in Khost. He is very well known in Al Qaeda. He is an American and a friend of Muhammad Atta, who led 9/11 attacks five years ago. We call him “Jaffer al Tayyar” [“Jafer the Pilot”]; he is very brave and intelligent. Bush is aware that brother Adnan has smuggled deadly materials inside America from the Mexican border. Bush is silent about him, because he doesn’t want to panic his people.

Bush has done little to close the southern US border and if the aforementioned takes place on his watch, it would only be right to impeach him for failing to do what was necessary to protect the American people. We knew for a long time that Islamic nuts would try and attack the WTC again after 1993, and now weve heard many times they want to set off a nuke. Bush cant say he didnt know if it happens, because even we are reading about it ourselves. If such an attack is carried out, after such brazen and open announcements, the talk of “We knew we’d be hit again” is not going to be enough to shield Bush and Chertoff from efforts to remove them, for not defending our porous southern border.

And this raises another issue. Often there is talk of US forces playing it soft during Ramadan, so Muslims are not offended. I say if the enemy takes a break for a month, all the more opportunity to kill them. The attack on Pearl Harbor occurred between Thanksgiving and Christmas 1941, because the enemy (then Japan) knew we would be vulnerable then. We had to end that mess with Japan by dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We showed the enemy we would not play nice then. Its time to show this enemy we dont take chances when it comes to our security and that we wont capitulate to their customs, because they desire to kill us.

_____________________________________________

This has been a production of the Guard the Borders Blogburst. It was started by Euphoric Reality, and serves to keep immigration issues in the forefront of our minds as were going about our daily lives and continuing to fight the war on terror. If you are concerned with the trend of illegal immigration facing our country, join our blogburst! Just send an email with your blog name and url to admin at guardtheborders dot com.

Archbishop George Cardinal Pell yesterday told the nation’s clerics they needed to address the links between Islam and violence instead of sweeping them under the carpet.[…]

They (The violent reactions of Muslims) showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but with violence,” Cardinal Pell said.